Oliveria: Brazil's AIDS policy works
Taking a realist approach, Brazil helps prostitutes, encourages contraceptives
The government recently forced Merck to allow mass production of the anti-AIDS drug efavirenz. But where does one draw the line between intellectual rights and human rights?
By Patrick de Oliveira (Contact)
Wednesday, May 9th, 2007
Last Friday, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva broke the patent of the anti-AIDS drug efavirenz. Although there are many things in the scandal-plagued Lula administration that deserve criticism, this action should be commended as a noble and brave measure that is part of a necessary endeavor: to have a humane AIDS policy.
Lula issued a compulsory license for efavirenz, which means that Brazil can now manufacture or buy generic versions of the drug while paying a small royalty to Merck, the drug’s manufacturer. The measure, although controversial, is allowed by the World Trade Organization in certain cases.
By aggressively pursuing these price reductions, the Brazilian government is able to provide free and universal access to antiretroviral drugs
The Brazilian government decided to break the patent after negotiations with Merck failed to reduce the price of the drug to a satisfactory amount.
Brazil is an excellent example of how government intervention can greatly benefit the construction of better health policies. The Brazilian AIDS policy is successful and used as a model for several countries across the world. By threatening to break their patents, the Brazilian government was able to significantly decrease the prices of several AIDS drugs.
By aggressively pursuing these price reductions, the Brazilian government is able to provide free and universal access to antiretroviral drugs. Drug cocktails are very expensive, and there is no way that the poorer sections of society could have access to them without government help.
Intellectual rights activists may criticize this measure; however, there is a big difference between intellectual rights and a monopoly of knowledge. Knowledge is only useful when it is constructive for society. A monopoly of knowledge deprives people of the benefits of intellectual achievements.
The pharmaceutical industry’s search for even higher profits cannot interfere with a person’s, a people’s or a nation’s health. At what point is it wrong to gain ridiculous profits from other people’s suffering? When is it ever right to sentence a person to death because of “intellectual rights?”
Some may argue that the break of patents will cause a decrease of investment in drug research. If that is so, then there is something extremely wrong with the current pharmaceutical system. Perhaps private investments fueled by selfish impulses are not the best way to go about things.
There are other measures, however, that make Brazil’s AIDS policy one of the best in the world. The government has adopted a realist approach, recognizing that there is no way to prevent people from having sex. There have been significant investments on the promotion of condom use, and sexual education in schools is comprehensive. Throughout the year, and especially during Carnaval, it is common to see billboards featuring government sponsored condom advertisements — and government officials and NGO’s freely distribute prophylactics.
In addition, the Brazilian government refused to stigmatize prostitution, thus renouncing a $48 million grant from the U.S., and decided instead to work with prostitutes to help prevent the spread of AIDS. This cooperation with prostitutes is indispensable because they are a high-risk group.
An AIDS policy needs to be sensitive and adaptable to cultural differences; there is no one-size-fits-all model; however, there is lot to be learned from the Brazilian model. The prioritizations of health before profits and of realism before attempts to impose moral values are essential to combat this epidemic. Brazil and the U.S. have many similarities. Sex is predominant in both countries’ cultures, and even though a cultural revolution is possible, by the time it is finished AIDS will have caused too much damage. Meanwhile, the best way to deal with the epidemic is to accept and deal with the realities of our culture, and to make healthcare a priority.
De Oliveira is a Belo Horizonte, Brazil sophomore in journalism and history
Discussion
All comments are moderated by Kansan.com staff. For our full user policy, click here.
So the conclusion here is that because a lot of people are to stupid to take measures to protect themselves, private enterprise should be punished? Next thing you know, De Oliveira will support nations capturing freighters full of food to feed their people while sending what they view as a "fair" amount of money to compensate those who grew it.
Eudoxus, so your conclusion is that the profits of a business are more important than a human being's life?
Eudoxus.
You seem to assume that the only people who get AIDS are the ones who are not careful. First of all, using a preservative is the only way to prevent getting infected by HIV during sex. But even then, the condom could break. Furthermore, what about an individual who's been careful his whole life, but because of one small mistake is handed a death sentence?
Also, HIV can be transmited through blood transfusion and from a mom to her kid (including childbirth and maternal milk). Sure, if the necessary measures are taken, the risk decreases, but it is still there.
Not to mention drug addicts. Sharing needles and all that.
Brazil has taken a proactive stance in all of this. HIV transmition by blood transfusion and childbirth is extremelly rare because of all the testing and precautions implemented. It has also, besides a comprehensive sex education program and the free distribution of condoms, distributed free disposable needles to drug addicts. That is why the program is so efficient. There is virtually no moralizing, no looking down upon people.
But, there are still those people who don't get, or understand the message. These are mostly from lower classes, with lower levels of education. And there are still people who commit mistakes. That is where the free antiretroviral program comes in. Do you seriously believe that people living in the favelas, or in poorer areas of the northeast of Brazil, or even most of the middle class, can afford tens of thousands of dollars for this treatment?
Also, there is something incredibly wrong with the pharmaceutical industry. I do realize that making drugs is expensive, but the profit of these industries is absurd. And they are still pushing for more and more profits, by overpricing drugs and by pretty much transforming the US in a nation of "sick" people. Don't you watch tv? it now seems that you can only be normal if you have a disorder of some sort. The power of the pharmaceutical lobby is something scary. It is a threat to the well being of this country.
The access to antiretrovirals to everyone also has another bennefit. Theoretically, the earlier the virus starts being combated, the less chances it has of mutating. By preventing the virus of mutating, you prevent it from becoming resistant to certain medicines. If that virus becomes resistant, that means that a new drug need to be developed, thus increasing the price and the danger of the disease. So, who knows, perhaps Brazil's program is in a way preventing you from suffering even more if you eventually make a mistake (or are exposed to the virus through forces stronger than you can control) in your life.
And, if a country's population were starving, yes, I would support the capturing of freighter full off food (if, per example, that freighter were going from France to the US, or something like that). At some point action needs to be taken.
Yes. Some sort of action needs to be taken. However, by just hijacking patented material, they are threatening a system that develops the solutions. Drugs are extremely profitable. But that is because they have to be to make their development worthwhile. If you have to invest 5 billion dollars over a 15 year period without any kind of return, it must be because the return after said time frame is huge.
This is similar to vigilante justice. The government won't punish how I see fit so why bother.
The fact is Pharmeceutical companies wastefully spend money. All this supposed cost investment in reasearch is supplemented heavily by grants, both public and private, and the companies that manufacture do not shoulder as ridiculous a chunk of money as you are stating, Eudoxus. Let me ask you this- is the industry profitable enough? At what point is there "too much" profit? To most companies, there is no such thing. As a matter of fact, if they could produce items for $0.01 and sell them for $1,000 successfully, they would. Do they *need* a 75=90% profit margin, when much of their research is tax deducted as it is since they are coming up with medicines to help people (who can afford their product)?
Is there an inherent monatery value on human life? Or are you going to repeat the tired conservative mantra of "personal accountability" since "everyone gets the same chance in life."
Share your 2¢
Requires free registration.